Posted on 04/06/2009 6:10:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*
Few biblical teachings are as controversial among evangelicals as that of the global nature of Noah's Flood. If Scripture is our guide, however, it could not have been just a local flood covering the Mesopotamian River Valley, as taught by most leading evangelicals today, but must have been worldwide in extent and effect.
For instance, Scripture lists the primary mechanisms for the Flood...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Just to kick it off, I’ve been wondering just when the age of this Earth became such an all-encompassing issue for science. When did this concern first arise in a major way, and what was the putative age believed to be at that time? And, how has that belief changed over time, to the present? Dating methods in current use must have a very basic, erroneous assumption, in order for science and truth to be so far afield from one another.
The reality seems to be that it's not about finding out when the age of the Earth was first studied and estimated, but with figuring out how to make it look like it originated with Darwin.
“And everyFixed.specieskind existing today was on that one Ark” [excerpt, corrected]
Central to creationist theory is that all species that either currently exist or have become extinct, were created during the Seven Days. So, either:
(1) every currently existing species was on the Ark, orIf (2) is true, then that implies that new species were created after the Flood. Where and how did they come about?(2) there are species existing today that were not on the Ark.
“And we have no dinosaurs today because they didn't make it on the Ark.” [excerpt]I don't know where you got that, but its not scriptural.
Dinosaurs existed. There is too much fossil evidence of their existence to deny that. Dino fossils have been discovered in the Middle East (where most of the Bible story occurs), yet dinos are never mentioned in scripture. Where did they go?
More to the point, WHY have we never found mammal or human fossils in the same geologic layers as dino fossils? Creation theory demands that they all existed at the same time.
“Central to creationist theory is that all species that either currently exist or have become extinct, were created during the Seven Days.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]That is a very popular strawman.
“Dinosaurs existed. There is too much fossil evidence of their existence to deny that. Dino fossils have been discovered in the Middle East (where most of the Bible story occurs), yet dinos are never mentioned in scripture.” [excerpt]The scriptures (and the original English translations thereof) predate the word dinosaur.
“More to the point, WHY have we never found mammal or human fossils in the same geologic layers as dino fossils? Creation theory demands that they all existed at the same time.” [excerpt]Your definition of 'Creation theory' is a strawman.
Declaring it a strawman argument allows you to dismiss it without answering.
So, what is your understanding of the large number of currently existing species, and their relationship to the Ark?
Were all currently-existing species present on the Ark?
I would be happy to hear your explanation.
That's very telling. Humans talk. Humans give names to things because they otherwise cannot talk about them to anybody. One would think that huge critters walking around would result in discussion, which would require their getting a name?
Dino fossils have been found around the Middle East, indicating that they once were wandering the area, yet no Middle-Eastern records mention them, and no words for them seem to exist.
So, do you think dinos made it onto Noah's Ark?
“That's very telling. Humans talk. Humans give names to things because they otherwise cannot talk about them to anybody. One would think that huge critters walking around would result in discussion, which would require their getting a name?” [excerpt]Well, בהמות comes to mind.
“Dino fossils have been found around the Middle East, indicating that they once were wandering the area, yet no Middle-Eastern records mention them, and no words for them seem to exist.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]What are you going to tell me next, that there are no black swans?
“So, do you think dinos made it onto Noah's Ark?” [excerpt]Read Genesis 7:15
Darwin inspired by Hutton, actually. A much younger age and cataclysmic flood was the accepted paradigm prior.
Okay. Where did Hutton go wrong, and how would that change the currently accepted estimates? Current estimates are based on radiometric dating of uranium samples. That methodology was generally accepted as being the most accurate back in the '30s.
Hutton's lengthy tome was a laughingstock, given no consideration or credibility in his era. He was the late 18th century equivalent of Al Gore. He was immediately tagged an atheist.
Hutton was cherry-picked out of comparative obscurity in hindsight, in order to rationalize greater and greater geological age, which in turn allowed rationalization of the truly epic time line required for macroevolutionary speciation.
Throwing around perjoratives doesn’t answer where he went wrong in his theories, and will not do anything to help advance creation science. You are only damaging your own position.
The relatively recent scientific addition of catastrophic upheavals and dieoffs would seem to repudiate Hutton rather well.
That looks more like a reasonable argument.
Now, what difference will that make to the current theories based on radiometric dating?
Are you implying that radiometric dating is uniformly reliable and consistent? I’m sure you’re aware that it isn’t. Tossing out dates that are contrary to prior assumptions has not exactly been uncommon.
I thought we started off with this as an exercise in following the history of Earth Age theories, and trying to see what the result of changing the assumptions made, starting at the beginning would be on current theory. I asked what seemed to be the next question in that process.
I never claimed radiometric dating was "uniformly reliable and consistent". I said it's currently considered the most reliable known method.
You wanted to explore the history of Earth Age theories and the various methodologies. I don't know how you expected to have that conversation without that coming up.
The fact is that it's not uniformly reliable and consistent, showing an age of between 140 million years and almost 4 million years, for a lava flow known to have occurred in 1801, for just one notable example. This should give pause to those who would posit a very ancient “genesis,” but such results are routinely deemed anomalous and tossed out, in favor of those that support the preconceived notion going in.
Weren't you going on earlier about not "cherry picking the outliers"?
You are quite correct. That is your opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.